In that case, here is a photo of a blank Genesis V2 for the chart, in the event that the maker might, at some point, wish to amend it:
Truthfully a 100% from the ground up original sculpt would meen that it was 100% sculpted by the artist. If you are using a life-cast than you are stealing from the source material. Not a 100% ground up original sculpt. The KNIFE WIELDER is truly a 100% from the ground up original sculpt.

TheShapeH2O:Is it true that Dennis recasted the NMM78 to make the DB2???
I don’t believe so. However, the near perfect placement of the facial features and overall form make me think it is a retool of a recast. I’ve been told it could be derived from the Sean Clarke Myers mask. With the exception of the NAG 2k and the KH/DW, ALL the big swingers are recasts or retools of recasts. That’s just the way it is.
Mark
But there is no proof though. Just because it has near perfect placement of the facial features doesn’t mean it’s a retool of a recast.

Truthfully a 100% from the ground up original sculpt would meen that it was 100% sculpted by the artist. If you are using a life-cast than you are stealing from the source material. Not a 100% ground up original sculpt. The KNIFE WIELDER is truly a 100% from the ground up original sculpt.
100% correct!.. The US78 is also a 100% from the ground up original sculpt, just say’n, because it’s mine

Spirit Of Samhain:That’s great, thanks for posting those,Davy Krueger!..“MMP STEALS mold, releases the nightmare and other incarnations”
That part killed me, how is that even possible!? Did they break into, Justin’s house!..Some crazy, shady business in the past…
I think the Nightmare mold was sent to MMP and Justin never received his end of the deal, or something along those lines, hence the term “stolen”.
The only potential inaccuracy in the chart that I can spot is the WMP Genesis V3, which I think might be a retool of the NAG Classic 75 master.
Ah ok, got ya…Um, just curious, why would Justin send his mold to MMP?
Spook:
TheShapeH2O:Is it true that Dennis recasted the NMM78 to make the DB2???
I don’t believe so. However, the near perfect placement of the facial features and overall form make me think it is a retool of a recast. I’ve been told it could be derived from the Sean Clarke Myers mask. With the exception of the NAG 2k and the KH/DW, ALL the big swingers are recasts or retools of recasts. That’s just the way it is.
Mark
But there is no proof though. Just because it has near perfect placement of the facial features doesn’t mean it’s a retool of a recast.
There’s no proof, sure. But here’s a bit of potential evidence. Nik of NAG showed me this. It’s a flaw that’s unique to the Sean Clarke recast, but it’s also on the DB2. Why would he sculpt something like this that’s not on all Kirks?

TheShapeH2O:Spook:
I don’t believe so. However, the near perfect placement of the facial features and overall form make me think it is a retool of a recast. I’ve been told it could be derived from the Sean Clarke Myers mask. With the exception of the NAG 2k and the KH/DW, ALL the big swingers are recasts or retools of recasts. That’s just the way it is.
Mark
But there is no proof though. Just because it has near perfect placement of the facial features doesn’t mean it’s a retool of a recast.
There’s no proof, sure. But here’s a bit of potential evidence. Nik of NAG showed me this. It’s a flaw that’s unique to the Sean Clarke recast, but it’s also on the DB2. Why would he sculpt something like this that’s not on all Kirks?
The flaws look different to me. Maybe it’s just me but I don’t see it.
Spook:
TheShapeH2O:But there is no proof though. Just because it has near perfect placement of the facial features doesn’t mean it’s a retool of a recast.
There’s no proof, sure. But here’s a bit of potential evidence. Nik of NAG showed me this. It’s a flaw that’s unique to the Sean Clarke recast, but it’s also on the DB2. Why would he sculpt something like this that’s not on all Kirks?
The flaws look different to me. Maybe it’s just me but I don’t see it.
I think in order to prove beyond a doubt, you would need to find at LEAST two identical mold marks, the chances of finding two identical mold marks from “different” molds is virtually impossible…The mask on the left is very washed out, you can tell that it came from a mold that has had many pulls taken from it and has not been repaired, you can tell this because of all the little nibs everywhere. Every time you pull a mask out of the mold, tiny little pieces of the mold go with it, and the brow has almost no detail left in it.
I do see one tiny mark that “almost” looks the same, but its too washed out to really tell…One tiny mark is just not enough proof.
TheShapeH2O:Spook:
There’s no proof, sure. But here’s a bit of potential evidence. Nik of NAG showed me this. It’s a flaw that’s unique to the Sean Clarke recast, but it’s also on the DB2. Why would he sculpt something like this that’s not on all Kirks?
The flaws look different to me. Maybe it’s just me but I don’t see it.
I think in order to prove beyond a doubt, you would need to find at LEAST two identical mold marks, the chances of finding two identical mold marks from “different” molds is virtually impossible…The mask on the left is very washed out, you can tell that it came from a mold that has had many pulls taken from it and has not been repaired, you can tell this because of all the little nibs everywhere. Every time you pull a mask out of the mold, tiny little pieces of the mold go with it, and the brow has almost no detail left in it.
I do see one tiny mark that “almost” looks the same, but its too washed out to really tell…One tiny mark is just not enough proof.
So you are saying, Dennis recasted the Sean Clark Kirk and made the flaw sharper? The Sean Clark kirk was already very washed out before the mold wore out.
Spirit Of Samhain: TheShapeH2O:The flaws look different to me. Maybe it’s just me but I don’t see it.
I think in order to prove beyond a doubt, you would need to find at LEAST two identical mold marks, the chances of finding two identical mold marks from “different” molds is virtually impossible…The mask on the left is very washed out, you can tell that it came from a mold that has had many pulls taken from it and has not been repaired, you can tell this because of all the little nibs everywhere. Every time you pull a mask out of the mold, tiny little pieces of the mold go with it, and the brow has almost no detail left in it.
I do see one tiny mark that “almost” looks the same, but its too washed out to really tell…One tiny mark is just not enough proof.
So you are saying, Dennis recasted the Sean Clark Kirk and made the flaw sharper? The Sean Clark kirk was already very washed out before the mold wore out.
No, I’m saying one tiny mark does not prove anything…
TheShapeH2O: Spirit Of Samhain:I think in order to prove beyond a doubt, you would need to find at LEAST two identical mold marks, the chances of finding two identical mold marks from “different” molds is virtually impossible…The mask on the left is very washed out, you can tell that it came from a mold that has had many pulls taken from it and has not been repaired, you can tell this because of all the little nibs everywhere. Every time you pull a mask out of the mold, tiny little pieces of the mold go with it, and the brow has almost no detail left in it.
I do see one tiny mark that “almost” looks the same, but its too washed out to really tell…One tiny mark is just not enough proof.
So you are saying, Dennis recasted the Sean Clark Kirk and made the flaw sharper? The Sean Clark kirk was already very washed out before the mold wore out.
No, I’m saying one tiny mark does not prove anything…
Oh, sorry. My bad. Didn’t read that clearly.
Spirit Of Samhain: TheShapeH2O:So you are saying, Dennis recasted the Sean Clark Kirk and made the flaw sharper? The Sean Clark kirk was already very washed out before the mold wore out.
No, I’m saying one tiny mark does not prove anything…
Oh, sorry. My bad. Didn’t read that clearly.